Assessment sheet for Baltic Sea region and for six subdivisions

Baltic Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators 0 to 200 m 200 to 800 m more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1) 0.31 0 NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.27 0 NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.12 0 NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.08 NA NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.73 1 NA
Average PD impact (I-6) 0.01 0 NA
Average L1 impact (I-6) 0.12 0 NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7) 1.00 1 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7) 0.85 1 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat (1000 km2) Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 106 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average intensity (I-1) Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2) Prop. of area fished per year (I-3) Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Offshore circalittoral mud 21.16 2533 14.80 11.99 34.29 1.62 0.61 0.51 0.22
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 19.52 2978 7.37 6.91 21.03 1.08 0.43 0.27 0.10
Circalittoral sand 33.07 6575 6.31 5.41 16.00 0.48 0.46 0.22 0.08
Infralittoral sand 24.10 3888 3.33 3.08 11.02 0.46 0.55 0.22 0.10
Circalittoral mud 22.81 5812 5.24 4.90 10.86 0.48 0.28 0.19 0.05
Circalittoral mixed sediment 106.88 13585 5.52 3.16 5.95 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.03
Offshore circalittoral sand 2.74 777 1.84 1.63 4.89 1.78 0.75 0.52 0.21
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 53.90 7756 3.76 2.23 4.45 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.03
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 33.81 3095 1.23 0.97 2.76 0.08 0.24 0.06 0.06
Infralittoral mixed sediment 18.77 5590 0.48 0.79 0.86 0.05 0.16 0.03 0.03
Infralittoral mud 1.83 1235 0.30 0.35 0.69 0.37 0.36 0.17 0.05
Infralittoral coarse sediment 6.95 2449 0.28 0.27 0.51 0.07 0.28 0.05 0.06
Circalittoral coarse sediment 12.21 4679 0.41 0.23 0.50 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.04
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 6.84 3334 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.94 2303 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 3.88 1497 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.72 536 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.02
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.18 238 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Unknown 0.17 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) <0.005 <0.005 105.75 0 3.25 5.09 0.02 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.05 0.01 41.49 0 9.24 0.40 <0.005 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) <0.005 <0.005 39.10 0 2.84 0.57 <0.005 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 2142.54 3.61 0.39 NaN 2.84 0.08 0.05 NaN NaN NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 85.7 1.48 0.37 NaN 0.87 0.11 0.08 NaN NaN NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact 34.438 0.437 0.338 NA 3.555 0.151 0.052 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact 1.378 0.179 0.318 NA 1.092 0.215 0.081 NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact 39.745 0.525 0.018 NA 0.055 0.005 0.001 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact 1.590 0.215 0.017 NA 0.017 0.007 0.001 NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.03 0.47 38.61 100.00 100.00
5 0.03 0.40 54.69 94.51 94.34
10 0.03 0.35 61.78 88.77 88.93
15 0.03 0.30 67.46 82.76 83.54
20 0.02 0.27 71.50 77.16 78.38
30 0.02 0.21 77.97 65.96 68.21
40 0.02 0.16 82.92 56.00 59.06
60 0.01 0.09 90.36 36.96 38.66
80 0.01 0.04 96.09 18.53 18.44
99 0.00 0.00 99.93 1.26 1.17

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.02 0.26 57.33 100.00 100.00
5 0.02 0.22 76.34 94.66 92.97
10 0.02 0.19 80.54 89.96 87.95
15 0.02 0.16 83.28 85.09 82.62
20 0.02 0.14 85.58 80.01 77.63
30 0.01 0.11 88.90 70.24 67.69
40 0.01 0.08 91.66 60.37 57.68
60 0.01 0.04 95.95 40.68 39.09
80 0.00 0.01 98.77 21.04 21.08
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.91 2.01

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.01 0.22 54.00 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.19 75.57 93.86 93.66
10 0.01 0.16 80.54 87.80 87.49
15 0.01 0.14 84.06 83.11 82.32
20 0.01 0.12 86.30 77.21 76.26
30 0.01 0.09 90.16 66.99 63.74
40 0.01 0.07 92.88 57.12 53.93
60 0.00 0.04 96.24 38.72 33.75
80 0.00 0.01 98.76 20.27 16.17
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.02 1.78

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.01 0.22 44.53 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.19 71.89 88.74 87.45
10 0.01 0.16 78.52 80.13 80.41
15 0.01 0.13 83.25 72.94 72.68
20 0.01 0.11 86.35 66.36 66.86
30 0.00 0.08 90.34 50.24 50.12
40 0.00 0.06 93.16 40.67 39.25
60 0.00 0.03 96.86 23.02 21.24
80 0.00 0.01 99.05 11.00 10.08
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.98 1.73

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud 21.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 2.6 8.9 18.1 34.0 59.1
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 19.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.3 9.1 33.9
Circalittoral sand 33.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 9.2 29.5
Infralittoral sand 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 4.0 11.5 29.1
Circalittoral mud 22.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 26.3
Circalittoral mixed sediment 106.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Offshore circalittoral sand 2.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.2 4.2 12.2 25.2 46.0 71.6
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 33.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.2
Infralittoral mixed sediment 18.77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
Infralittoral mud 1.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 6.2 29.2
Infralittoral coarse sediment 6.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 10.5
Circalittoral coarse sediment 12.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 6.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 3.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unknown 0.17 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud 21.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 3.0 10.1 20.8 38.2 62.2
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 19.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.8 9.2 34.0
Circalittoral sand 33.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 2.4 11.3 32.4
Infralittoral sand 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 9.7 22.2 48.6
Circalittoral mud 22.81 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.3 29.4
Circalittoral mixed sediment 106.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8
Offshore circalittoral sand 2.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 5.3 14.6 27.3 47.1 71.4
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 33.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.3 9.4
Infralittoral mixed sediment 18.77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2
Infralittoral mud 1.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 6.7 32.9
Infralittoral coarse sediment 6.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.4 14.8
Circalittoral coarse sediment 12.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.6
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 6.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 3.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unknown 0.17 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud 21.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 10.0 19.8 35.6 60.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 19.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.4 11.0 36.6
Circalittoral sand 33.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 2.9 11.6 35.2
Infralittoral sand 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.2 11.1 22.4 49.1
Circalittoral mud 22.81 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.0 32.8
Circalittoral mixed sediment 106.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1
Offshore circalittoral sand 2.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 5.7 13.9 25.7 46.7 70.8
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 33.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.0 25.4
Infralittoral mixed sediment 18.77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5
Infralittoral mud 1.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 7.9 34.6
Infralittoral coarse sediment 6.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.2 13.6
Circalittoral coarse sediment 12.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.9
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 6.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 3.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unknown 0.17 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Bothnian area

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators 0 to 200 m 200 to 800 m more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1) 0.01 0 NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.06 0 NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.01 0 NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.01 NA NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.94 1 NA
Average PD impact (I-6) 0.00 0 NA
Average L1 impact (I-6) 0.01 0 NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7) 1.00 1 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7) 0.99 1 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat (1000 km2) Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 106 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average intensity (I-1) Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2) Prop. of area fished per year (I-3) Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 28.13 4021 1.56 1.27 0.59 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.02
Circalittoral mixed sediment 56.01 6685 0.54 0.80 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02
Infralittoral mixed sediment 4.84 2076 0.11 0.43 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01
Circalittoral mud 3.22 2103 0.13 0.20 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.02
Circalittoral sand 7.34 2018 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01
Circalittoral coarse sediment 3.26 2005 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02
Infralittoral sand 0.84 469 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.48 596 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.03
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.52 411 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.90 1348 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Infralittoral mud 0.10 278 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.31 940 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.01 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.18
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.07 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.10
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 0 0.46 0 0.65 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0 0.67 0 1.92 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 0 2.68 0 0.85 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN NaN 1.45 NaN 2.95 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN NaN 5.76 NaN 1.31 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA NA 0.809 NA 3.340 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA NA 3.219 NA 1.484 NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA NA 0.021 NA 0.063 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA NA 0.082 NA 0.028 NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0.01 90.19 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.01 96.11 94.88 94.64
10 0 0.01 97.25 88.87 89.70
15 0 0.01 97.90 81.91 85.02
20 0 0.01 98.26 75.95 81.37
30 0 0.01 98.78 60.05 72.20
40 0 0.01 99.15 51.86 63.87
60 0 0.00 99.55 29.75 43.70
80 0 0.00 99.81 18.91 23.75
99 0 0.00 100.00 3.46 6.07

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 95.20 100.00 100.00
5 0 0 97.80 97.93 94.73
10 0 0 98.68 93.60 87.42
15 0 0 99.11 90.79 82.66
20 0 0 99.27 86.20 78.64
30 0 0 99.49 72.53 69.67
40 0 0 99.63 64.92 61.25
60 0 0 99.83 42.15 40.21
80 0 0 99.93 21.44 22.57
99 0 0 100.00 8.37 2.88

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0.01 96.33 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.01 98.16 95.54 95.36
10 0 0.01 98.40 91.17 91.21
15 0 0.01 98.63 84.70 85.65
20 0 0.01 98.81 78.32 79.25
30 0 0.01 99.12 70.79 70.92
40 0 0.01 99.28 62.34 62.39
60 0 0.00 99.69 44.66 45.32
80 0 0.00 99.92 16.70 17.08
99 0 0.00 100.00 8.78 9.04

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0.01 90.44 100.00 100.00
5 0 0.01 95.41 97.49 94.42
10 0 0.01 96.61 95.18 88.87
15 0 0.01 97.47 93.69 84.21
20 0 0.01 97.83 91.27 79.86
30 0 0.01 98.18 85.76 67.05
40 0 0.01 99.01 81.48 57.02
60 0 0.00 99.60 60.00 37.26
80 0 0.00 99.84 44.52 15.70
99 0 0.00 100.00 9.38 3.82

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 28.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment 56.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 4.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mud 3.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral sand 7.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 3.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral sand 0.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral sand 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 28.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment 56.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 4.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mud 3.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral sand 7.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 3.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral sand 0.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral sand 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 28.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment 56.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 4.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mud 3.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral sand 7.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 3.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral sand 0.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral sand 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Gulf of Finland

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators 0 to 200 m 200 to 800 m more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1) 0.00 NA NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.01 NA NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.00 NA NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.01 NA NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.99 NA NA
Average PD impact (I-6) 0.00 NA NA
Average L1 impact (I-6) 0.00 NA NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7) 1.00 NA NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7) 1.00 NA NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat (1000 km2) Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 106 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average intensity (I-1) Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2) Prop. of area fished per year (I-3) Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Circalittoral mud 3.10 793 0.01 0 0 0 0.02 0 0
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.99 1326 0.00 0 0 0 0.01 0 0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.69 572 0.00 0 0 0 0.01 0 0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 6.29 1166 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.93 792 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.10 815 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.26 559 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral sand 2.06 606 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.26 279 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mud 0.10 218 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.61 499 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral sand 0.73 368 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.13 71 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.88 271 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mud 3.06 370 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.90 182 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.06 71 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.36 118 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Unknown 0.17 100 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 0 0 0 <0.005 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 0 0 0 <0.005 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN NaN NaN NaN 11.38 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN NaN NaN NaN 2.28 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA NA NA NA 2.080 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA NA NA NA 0.417 NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA NA NA NA 1.771 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA NA NA NA 0.355 NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 98.25 100.00 100.00
5 0 0 98.80 93.86 93.69
10 0 0 99.17 90.22 90.22
15 0 0 99.17 90.22 90.22
20 0 0 99.53 86.88 87.04
30 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
40 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
60 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
80 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65
99 0 0 100.00 71.30 70.65

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 99.07 100.00 100.00
5 0 0 99.18 100.00 100.00
10 0 0 99.25 94.55 94.80
15 0 0 99.25 94.55 94.80
20 0 0 99.27 82.86 82.50
30 0 0 99.43 72.13 71.87
40 0 0 99.43 72.13 71.87
60 0 0 99.84 47.88 46.84
80 0 0 100.00 27.19 26.63
99 0 0 100.00 27.19 26.63

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 98.91 100.0 100.00
5 0 0 99.32 100.0 100.00
10 0 0 99.32 100.0 100.00
15 0 0 99.32 100.0 100.00
20 0 0 99.32 100.0 100.00
30 0 0 100.00 86.1 85.93
40 0 0 100.00 86.1 85.93
60 0 0 100.00 86.1 85.93
80 0 0 100.00 86.1 85.93
99 0 0 100.00 86.1 85.93

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 99.93 100 100
5 0 0 100.00 100 100
10 0 0 100.00 100 100
15 0 0 100.00 100 100
20 0 0 100.00 100 100
30 0 0 100.00 100 100
40 0 0 100.00 100 100
60 0 0 100.00 100 100
80 0 0 100.00 100 100
99 0 0 100.00 100 100

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mud 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 6.29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.93 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.26 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral sand 2.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.26 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud 0.1 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.61 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral sand 0.73 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.13 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.88 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud 3.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.9 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.36 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Unknown 0.17 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mud 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 6.29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.93 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.26 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral sand 2.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.26 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud 0.1 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.61 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral sand 0.73 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.13 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.88 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud 3.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.9 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.36 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Unknown 0.17 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mud 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 6.29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 0.93 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.26 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral sand 2.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.26 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud 0.1 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.61 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral sand 0.73 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.13 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.88 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud 3.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 0.9 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.06 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.36 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Unknown 0.17 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Gulf of Riga

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators 0 to 200 m 200 to 800 m more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1) 0 NA NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0 NA NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0 NA NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0 NA NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 1 NA NA
Average PD impact (I-6) 0 NA NA
Average L1 impact (I-6) 0 NA NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7) 1 NA NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7) 1 NA NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat (1000 km2) Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 106 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average intensity (I-1) Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2) Prop. of area fished per year (I-3) Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.45 542 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00
Infralittoral mixed sediment 1.43 217 0.00 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.00
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.84 120 0.05 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.02
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.48 111 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral mud 5.16 506 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.99 294 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 32 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Circalittoral sand 1.30 279 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.53 136 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral mud 0.01 7 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 16 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Infralittoral sand 0.70 142 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.01 2 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) <0.005 0 <0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0.05 0 <0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) <0.005 0 <0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) 2142.54 NaN 0.01 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) 85.7 NaN <0.005 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact 34.438 NA 0.003 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact 1.378 NA 0.001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact 39.745 NA 0.002 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact 1.590 NA 0.001 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 99.85 100 100
5 0 0 100.00 100 100
10 0 0 100.00 100 100
15 0 0 100.00 100 100
20 0 0 100.00 100 100
30 0 0 100.00 100 100
40 0 0 100.00 100 100
60 0 0 100.00 100 100
80 0 0 100.00 100 100
99 0 0 100.00 100 100

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 99.43 100 100
5 0 0 100.00 100 100
10 0 0 100.00 100 100
15 0 0 100.00 100 100
20 0 0 100.00 100 100
30 0 0 100.00 100 100
40 0 0 100.00 100 100
60 0 0 100.00 100 100
80 0 0 100.00 100 100
99 0 0 100.00 100 100

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 96.15 100.00 100.00
5 0 0 98.07 100.00 100.00
10 0 0 98.07 100.00 100.00
15 0 0 98.07 100.00 100.00
20 0 0 98.07 100.00 100.00
30 0 0 98.07 100.00 100.00
40 0 0 98.07 100.00 100.00
60 0 0 100.00 49.64 49.64
80 0 0 100.00 49.64 49.64
99 0 0 100.00 49.64 49.64

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0 0 100 NA NA
5 NA NA NA NA NA
10 NA NA NA NA NA
15 NA NA NA NA NA
20 NA NA NA NA NA
30 NA NA NA NA NA
40 NA NA NA NA NA
60 NA NA NA NA NA
80 NA NA NA NA NA
99 NA NA NA NA NA

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 1.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.48 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral mud 5.16 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.99 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral sand 1.3 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.53 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud 0.01 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral sand 0.7 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.01 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 1.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.48 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral mud 5.16 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.99 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral sand 1.3 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.53 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud 0.01 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral sand 0.7 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.01 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Circalittoral mixed sediment 5.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 1.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.48 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral mud 5.16 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.99 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Circalittoral sand 1.3 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.53 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral mud 0.01 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral sand 0.7 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.01 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Baltic Proper

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators 0 to 200 m 200 to 800 m more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1) 0.26 0 NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.26 0 NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.10 0 NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.07 NA NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.74 1 NA
Average PD impact (I-6) 0.00 0 NA
Average L1 impact (I-6) 0.09 0 NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7) 1.00 1 NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7) 0.88 1 NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat (1000 km2) Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 106 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average intensity (I-1) Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2) Prop. of area fished per year (I-3) Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 15.31 2121 3.93 4.02 12.17 0.79 0.33 0.21 0.08
Offshore circalittoral mud 8.43 1278 2.76 2.95 8.59 1.02 0.40 0.30 0.11
Circalittoral sand 11.76 1880 2.09 1.24 4.14 0.35 0.49 0.17 0.08
Circalittoral mud 7.50 1621 1.82 1.37 3.68 0.49 0.34 0.20 0.06
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 16.26 2086 1.56 0.58 2.83 0.17 0.32 0.13 0.07
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 31.52 2735 0.95 0.75 2.01 0.06 0.21 0.05 0.05
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.70 196 0.43 0.49 1.39 1.98 0.61 0.41 0.16
Circalittoral mixed sediment 28.96 3585 2.32 0.66 1.11 0.04 0.17 0.02 0.03
Circalittoral coarse sediment 5.86 1391 0.24 0.06 0.16 0.03 0.22 0.02 0.06
Infralittoral sand 2.28 729 0.05 0.03 0.15 0.06 0.21 0.06 0.04
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.73 1068 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.21 756 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 1.95 269 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02
Infralittoral mixed sediment 5.42 1213 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Infralittoral mud 0.17 278 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.36 617 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.56 416 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.03
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.12 156 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 <0.005 35.17 0 1.14 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 0.01 11.78 0 4.44 0 0 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 <0.005 11.21 0 0.98 0 0 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN 6.94 0.33 NaN 3.91 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN 2.06 0.32 NaN 0.86 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA 1.223 0.319 NA 4.730 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA 0.363 0.303 NA 1.043 NA NA NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA 1.806 0.017 NA 0.082 NA NA NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA 0.536 0.016 NA 0.018 NA NA NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.01 0.20 66.75 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.18 81.66 94.47 91.82
10 0.01 0.15 84.24 89.20 86.57
15 0.01 0.14 85.94 84.49 81.80
20 0.01 0.12 87.72 79.09 76.53
30 0.01 0.10 90.16 68.76 66.42
40 0.01 0.08 92.33 59.23 57.08
60 0.01 0.05 95.57 39.19 37.99
80 0.00 0.02 98.15 19.41 18.88
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.38 1.28

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.02 0.26 60.27 100.00 100.00
5 0.02 0.23 72.93 93.89 92.10
10 0.02 0.20 77.97 88.64 86.83
15 0.02 0.18 81.36 83.07 81.24
20 0.01 0.15 83.93 77.94 76.17
30 0.01 0.12 87.67 67.08 65.92
40 0.01 0.09 90.52 56.50 55.66
60 0.01 0.05 94.70 36.94 36.62
80 0.00 0.02 97.85 19.46 19.14
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.12 1.99

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.01 0.17 50.99 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.15 77.34 95.77 94.29
10 0.01 0.13 82.40 91.55 89.23
15 0.01 0.11 85.91 86.89 83.22
20 0.00 0.09 88.52 82.27 76.58
30 0.00 0.07 92.21 71.29 61.60
40 0.00 0.05 94.85 62.27 48.77
60 0.00 0.02 97.98 45.52 27.96
80 0.00 0.01 99.41 26.18 15.82
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 8.80 5.42

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.01 0.19 66.39 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.16 80.95 93.43 86.99
10 0.01 0.15 83.19 88.06 79.52
15 0.01 0.13 85.70 82.88 72.30
20 0.01 0.12 87.16 78.52 69.09
30 0.01 0.09 90.37 68.44 61.16
40 0.00 0.07 92.45 58.59 46.59
60 0.00 0.04 95.95 37.70 28.25
80 0.00 0.02 98.38 20.27 15.73
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 4.53 3.67

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 15.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 3.0 29.8
Offshore circalittoral mud 8.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 12.7 38.7
Circalittoral sand 11.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.7 7.4 24.0
Circalittoral mud 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 3.9 29.8
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 16.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.9 22.4
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 31.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 2.9
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.3 1.5 16.2 45.9 74.4
Circalittoral mixed sediment 28.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9
Circalittoral coarse sediment 5.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 6.8
Infralittoral sand 2.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 10.4
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 1.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 5.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 15.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 31.2
Offshore circalittoral mud 8.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 14.5 42.6
Circalittoral sand 11.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 1.4 6.7 21.8
Circalittoral mud 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 5.6 31.6
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 16.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.9 31.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 31.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 7.4
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.7 1.6 16.7 46.1 73.1
Circalittoral mixed sediment 28.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2
Circalittoral coarse sediment 5.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.1 9.2
Infralittoral sand 2.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 16.5
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 1.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 5.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.8
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 15.31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.2 33.6
Offshore circalittoral mud 8.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 16.4 43.4
Circalittoral sand 11.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.7 1.8 8.5 29.1
Circalittoral mud 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 12.0 38.8
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 16.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 7.3 33.3
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 31.52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.5 28.1
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 2.8 18.1 47.3 74.1
Circalittoral mixed sediment 28.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1
Circalittoral coarse sediment 5.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.1 8.1
Infralittoral sand 2.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 26.3
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 3.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 1.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 5.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral mud 0.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 1.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.1
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Arkona & Bornholm Basin

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators 0 to 200 m 200 to 800 m more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1) 1.10 NA NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.78 NA NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.42 NA NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.31 NA NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.22 NA NA
Average PD impact (I-6) 0.02 NA NA
Average L1 impact (I-6) 0.41 NA NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7) 0.99 NA NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7) 0.46 NA NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat (1000 km2) Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 106 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average intensity (I-1) Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2) Prop. of area fished per year (I-3) Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Offshore circalittoral mud 9.44 810 11.87 8.83 25.07 2.66 1.00 0.86 0.49
Circalittoral sand 8.57 1242 2.91 2.48 8.83 1.03 0.90 0.47 0.23
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 3.20 484 3.44 2.87 8.82 2.75 1.00 0.63 0.28
Infralittoral sand 11.86 1190 1.98 1.41 6.72 0.57 0.74 0.30 0.19
Circalittoral mixed sediment 10.03 1143 2.50 1.50 4.24 0.42 0.59 0.22 0.18
Circalittoral mud 1.99 479 1.46 1.23 3.27 1.64 0.98 0.67 0.32
Offshore circalittoral sand 1.47 314 1.31 1.01 3.22 2.20 0.98 0.71 0.38
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.23 189 0.65 0.38 1.03 0.84 0.92 0.50 0.33
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 1.38 167 0.28 0.22 0.75 0.55 1.00 0.26 0.36
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.69 627 0.12 0.08 0.23 0.09 0.46 0.07 0.12
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.30 519 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.16 0.60 0.11 0.11
Infralittoral mixed sediment 2.95 621 0.15 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.42 0.06 0.12
Infralittoral mud 0.24 93 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.69 0.71 0.40 0.17
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.49 147 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.58 0.07 0.09
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 66 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.42 0.84 0.37 0.08
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.02 30 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.58 0.97 0.41 0.30
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.00 0.22 NA
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 <0.005 59.14 0 1.40 2.26 0.02 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 <0.005 24.07 0 2.60 0.14 <0.005 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 <0.005 19.09 0 0.92 0.21 <0.005 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN 0.79 0.41 NaN 1.86 0.06 0.05 NaN NaN NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN 0.78 0.32 NaN 0.66 0.09 0.08 NaN NaN NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA 0.125 0.355 NA 2.702 0.125 0.053 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA 0.123 0.281 NA 0.956 0.179 0.082 NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA 0.158 0.019 NA 0.033 0.003 0.001 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA 0.155 0.015 NA 0.012 0.005 0.001 NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.05 0.79 0.02 100.00 100.00
5 0.05 0.68 23.85 94.68 94.69
10 0.05 0.59 35.56 88.68 89.06
15 0.04 0.51 45.16 82.67 83.97
20 0.04 0.45 52.00 76.70 78.61
30 0.04 0.35 62.95 65.55 68.52
40 0.03 0.27 71.32 55.73 59.37
60 0.02 0.15 83.66 37.12 39.40
80 0.01 0.06 93.37 18.47 18.70
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.91 0.77

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.02 0.49 10.16 100.00 100.00
5 0.02 0.43 48.23 94.19 93.87
10 0.02 0.37 58.04 89.06 88.90
15 0.02 0.32 64.82 83.75 83.79
20 0.02 0.28 69.80 77.70 78.39
30 0.01 0.22 77.59 67.34 68.14
40 0.01 0.16 83.57 54.92 56.87
60 0.01 0.10 90.36 35.89 36.94
80 0.00 0.04 96.05 17.04 17.21
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 1.12 0.71

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.05 0.62 0.25 100.00 100.00
5 0.05 0.49 42.94 94.86 94.49
10 0.05 0.39 57.59 90.32 89.98
15 0.04 0.32 65.85 86.01 85.37
20 0.04 0.27 71.71 81.34 80.07
30 0.04 0.19 80.81 71.86 69.91
40 0.03 0.13 86.97 62.87 59.42
60 0.02 0.06 94.10 44.62 40.29
80 0.01 0.03 97.79 22.53 20.65
99 0.00 0.01 100.00 4.59 4.29

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.01 0.29 25.90 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.25 61.00 87.30 86.81
10 0.01 0.22 69.99 80.10 80.49
15 0.01 0.19 76.53 72.95 73.58
20 0.01 0.16 81.08 66.89 68.61
30 0.01 0.12 86.25 53.86 53.08
40 0.01 0.09 90.04 43.37 42.05
60 0.00 0.05 95.19 25.40 24.39
80 0.00 0.02 98.32 12.04 12.72
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 2.05 2.99

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud 9.44 0.3 0.9 3.5 7.8 12.3 18.6 27.3 38.4 53.4 73.1
Circalittoral sand 8.57 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.6 5.8 11.3 20.5 33.7 58.5
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 3.2 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.8 4.4 7.1 11.0 19.0 28.6 46.6
Infralittoral sand 11.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 1.7 4.6 10.1 18.9 40.2
Circalittoral mixed sediment 10.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 5.0 14.6 32.4
Circalittoral mud 1.99 <0.1 0.4 2.4 5.0 10.4 16.2 23.8 34.8 48.5 68.8
Offshore circalittoral sand 1.47 <0.1 0.3 1.4 3.6 8.0 18.0 27.1 40.5 56.7 78.4
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.23 0.0 <0.1 0.6 1.7 5.5 11.8 18.4 27.9 41.4 61.1
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 1.38 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.9 4.8 8.1 11.5 16.4 22.0 31.9
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.0 5.3 19.2
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.0 3.7 8.6 22.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment 2.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 6.6 23.8
Infralittoral mud 0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.1 4.1 11.5 18.2 51.3 79.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.7 4.4 7.1 13.9
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.8 1.7 19.6 33.3 62.0 62.0 100.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.02 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.8 4.7 13.9 25.1 31.6 70.7 100.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 0.2 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud 9.44 0.4 1.0 3.7 8.7 14.3 21.6 31.8 42.8 56.6 75.2
Circalittoral sand 8.57 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 3.4 6.7 12.3 22.9 36.5 63.0
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 3.2 0.2 0.5 1.7 2.9 4.6 7.1 10.5 17.9 26.9 43.2
Infralittoral sand 11.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 5.2 12.2 20.1 31.5 57.1
Circalittoral mixed sediment 10.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 5.5 17.0 37.9
Circalittoral mud 1.99 0.1 0.8 3.2 6.2 12.3 19.0 27.6 38.4 55.9 74.0
Offshore circalittoral sand 1.47 <0.1 0.5 1.8 4.5 9.8 20.6 29.6 42.7 58.1 78.3
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.23 0.0 <0.1 0.7 2.4 7.7 14.9 20.3 33.0 50.4 69.4
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 1.38 0.3 0.6 2.2 3.4 5.3 8.9 12.7 18.0 24.2 34.4
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.3 8.1 24.5
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.1 5.3 12.0 28.6
Infralittoral mixed sediment 2.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.7 5.6 21.6
Infralittoral mud 0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 4.5 13.6 25.8 38.1 70.1 89.9
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.9 4.4 9.9 18.1
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.1 2.1 24.9 36.0 67.4 67.4 100.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.02 <0.1 0.4 0.7 1.8 4.8 13.0 25.2 34.3 72.6 100.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 0.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud 9.44 0.4 1.1 3.8 8.5 13.4 19.9 28.9 39.1 53.3 74.2
Circalittoral sand 8.57 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 3.8 7.0 12.4 22.1 35.6 61.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 3.2 0.3 0.6 2.1 3.3 4.9 7.5 10.9 19.0 28.9 47.9
Infralittoral sand 11.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 5.9 12.8 19.7 30.1 58.3
Circalittoral mixed sediment 10.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 5.1 17.1 40.3
Circalittoral mud 1.99 0.2 1.2 4.6 8.7 15.4 21.1 28.5 37.5 53.0 70.2
Offshore circalittoral sand 1.47 0.1 0.8 1.8 3.9 8.4 17.9 26.1 38.4 54.3 75.2
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand 1.23 0.0 <0.1 0.9 2.7 9.0 16.4 19.8 34.0 54.2 73.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand 1.38 0.4 0.9 2.9 4.2 6.2 10.1 14.3 19.6 25.8 35.1
Infralittoral coarse sediment 2.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.4 6.0 18.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.2 5.8 12.3 26.2
Infralittoral mixed sediment 2.95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 3.6 15.5
Infralittoral mud 0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.5 20.6 34.7 45.4 76.3 90.8
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.7 3.9 8.5 19.3
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.0 1.9 17.6 32.3 66.8 66.8 100.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.02 <0.1 0.4 0.6 1.6 4.6 12.9 24.0 31.4 74.5 100.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 <0.1 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 100.0 100.0 100.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN

Western Baltic Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators 0 to 200 m 200 to 800 m more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1) 0.72 NA NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2) 0.57 NA NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3) 0.27 NA NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4) 0.20 NA NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5) 0.43 NA NA
Average PD impact (I-6) 0.02 NA NA
Average L1 impact (I-6) 0.29 NA NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7) 0.99 NA NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7) 0.63 NA NA

Figure 1

**Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018**

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

**Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle**

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat (1000 km2) Number of grid cells Landings 1000 tonnes Value 106 euro Swept area 1000 km2 Average intensity (I-1) Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2) Prop. of area fished per year (I-3) Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Infralittoral sand 7.70 990 1.28 1.56 4.14 0.54 0.53 0.20 0.13
Circalittoral mud 1.84 310 1.82 2.09 3.85 2.09 0.90 0.72 0.25
Circalittoral sand 2.03 550 1.26 1.50 2.99 1.47 0.74 0.48 0.17
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.22 70 0.17 0.20 0.63 2.83 0.93 0.85 0.19
Infralittoral mixed sediment 3.18 669 0.21 0.28 0.60 0.19 0.45 0.10 0.12
Infralittoral mud 1.22 361 0.27 0.33 0.52 0.43 0.40 0.18 0.12
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.45 304 0.14 0.19 0.35 0.79 0.80 0.35 0.16
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.21 144 0.10 0.13 0.28 1.33 0.83 0.49 0.24
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.74 240 0.13 0.16 0.26 0.36 0.68 0.20 0.22
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.07 94 0.06 0.07 0.11 1.63 0.76 0.61 0.24
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.05 80 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.73 0.81 0.24 0.16
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.01 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.52 0.22 NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA

Figure 3

**Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).**

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

**Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.**

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

**Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018**

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

**Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground**

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

**Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year**

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2) 0 <0.005 10.97 0 0.06 2.82 <0.005 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes) 0 <0.005 4.97 0 0.26 0.25 <0.005 0 0 0
Value (10^6 euro) 0 <0.005 6.13 0 0.08 0.36 <0.005 0 0 0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN 0.3 0.45 NaN 4.31 0.09 0.03 NaN NaN NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2) NaN 1.22 0.56 NaN 1.35 0.13 0.05 NaN NaN NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

**Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.**

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

**Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)**

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.
DRB_MOL OT_CRU OT_DMF OT_MI OT_SPF SDN_DMF SSC_DMF TBB_CRU TBB_DMF TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact NA 0.018 0.290 NA 2.272 0.171 0.019 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact NA 0.072 0.358 NA 0.710 0.244 0.033 NA NA NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact NA 0.018 0.018 NA 0.051 0.006 0.000 NA NA NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact NA 0.074 0.022 NA 0.016 0.009 0.001 NA NA NA

Figure 10

**Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.**

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.01 0.22 46.97 100.00 100.00
5 0.01 0.18 76.37 91.26 89.95
10 0.01 0.14 82.48 82.78 81.84
15 0.01 0.12 85.95 74.45 71.94
20 0.01 0.10 88.49 66.21 63.63
30 0.01 0.07 92.06 49.34 46.67
40 0.00 0.05 94.63 37.20 34.30
60 0.00 0.03 97.32 22.01 19.04
80 0.00 0.01 99.53 10.15 8.12
99 0.00 0.00 100.00 5.82 4.49

MSFD habitat - 2

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.05 0.74 9.92 100.00 100.00
5 0.05 0.64 34.84 94.44 93.75
10 0.05 0.57 42.97 89.25 88.39
15 0.05 0.49 51.76 83.58 82.70
20 0.04 0.44 56.29 77.96 76.81
30 0.04 0.36 64.90 66.76 65.63
40 0.03 0.28 72.76 56.30 55.13
60 0.02 0.16 85.18 36.14 35.68
80 0.01 0.07 94.23 18.98 19.38
99 0.00 0.01 100.00 3.11 3.52

MSFD habitat - 3

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.04 0.49 26.41 100.00 100.00
5 0.04 0.40 55.99 94.40 93.43
10 0.03 0.35 62.86 88.91 86.67
15 0.03 0.30 68.33 83.19 80.92
20 0.03 0.26 72.06 78.08 75.80
30 0.03 0.21 78.73 68.25 65.90
40 0.02 0.15 84.47 59.53 56.42
60 0.02 0.08 92.29 41.36 37.22
80 0.01 0.03 97.58 19.30 17.39
99 0.00 0.01 100.00 5.56 3.48

MSFD habitat - 4

**Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.**

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%) Average PD impact Average L1 impact Area unfished (%) Value (%) Weight (%)
0 0.07 0.87 6.62 100.00 100.00
5 0.07 0.77 23.30 93.43 92.84
10 0.06 0.64 36.99 88.97 88.55
15 0.06 0.60 41.36 84.65 84.29
20 0.06 0.54 51.69 78.95 78.59
30 0.05 0.43 60.10 68.40 68.51
40 0.04 0.40 64.10 60.18 60.52
60 0.03 0.28 79.80 43.93 44.67
80 0.02 0.13 93.67 25.04 25.85
99 0.01 0.06 100.00 14.45 14.95

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Infralittoral sand 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 2.2 7.7 24.4
Circalittoral mud 1.84 0.0 <0.1 0.6 3.5 8.9 14.0 25.6 37.6 53.3 70.6
Circalittoral sand 2.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 2.4 7.3 17.5 32.4 55.4
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.22 0.0 0.4 3.8 8.2 13.7 23.7 37.3 53.8 73.9 85.3
Infralittoral mixed sediment 3.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 3.9 16.8
Infralittoral mud 1.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.7 6.4 28.7
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.45 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 5.6 15.3 26.7 63.4
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.21 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 2.5 6.8 12.8 21.9 36.9 56.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 4.4 8.1 17.0 34.9
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.5 9.9 17.5 29.7 46.9 76.2
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.05 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.3 3.8 12.2 40.4
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Infralittoral sand 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 3.9 13.4 40.5
Circalittoral mud 1.84 0.0 <0.1 0.6 4.0 9.5 15.9 28.3 42.0 58.2 75.2
Circalittoral sand 2.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 2.5 8.6 19.7 33.6 54.9
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.22 0.0 0.6 5.6 10.0 15.4 25.8 39.8 56.1 75.0 85.5
Infralittoral mixed sediment 3.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 3.9 15.6
Infralittoral mud 1.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.6 6.0 30.8
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.45 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.2 0.7 1.3 4.7 12.9 24.6 56.0
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.21 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.3 2.7 6.6 12.3 22.5 37.6 55.5
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.1 6.6 12.4 29.5 55.1
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 5.0 11.7 21.1 37.9 58.6 81.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.05 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 2.8 10.0 37.9
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type Extent of habitat 1000 km2 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Infralittoral sand 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 4.7 14.6 43.4
Circalittoral mud 1.84 0.0 <0.1 1.1 4.6 10.5 16.8 29.8 43.3 58.9 75.3
Circalittoral sand 2.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.6 3.3 10.7 21.9 36.5 59.4
Offshore circalittoral mud 0.22 0.0 1.2 6.2 10.5 15.7 25.8 39.5 55.3 74.1 85.1
Infralittoral mixed sediment 3.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 7.5 19.5
Infralittoral mud 1.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.7 6.5 31.8
Circalittoral mixed sediment 0.45 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.4 0.9 1.8 6.3 14.2 26.4 56.3
Offshore circalittoral sand 0.21 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.3 4.4 8.8 18.3 38.4 53.6 67.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment 0.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.1 6.7 14.2 30.3 55.1
Circalittoral coarse sediment 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.7 12.0 20.8 37.1 59.5 81.1
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 0.05 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.6 5.0 15.8 44.4
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 0.05 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 0 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN